ARG1
Senior Member
Big if true: Really Really Big
|
|
|
GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,479
- Reaction score
- 9,294
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
No, no, no!
London-Toronto is not at all comfortable for GO trains. Instead, VIA should be more inventive and sell cheap seats on its own trains, especially on Saturdays (the least busy day) or by adding another car. But VIA has its own challenges.
Also, London is not Niagara Falls. Where would you take the kids after getting of at London?
ericmacm
Active Member
There are a number of things to do in London, including but not limited to:
- Budweiser Gardens/London Knights Game
- Covent Garden Market
- Storybook Gardens
- Fanshawe Pioneer Village
- 100 Kellogg Lane
- East Park
- Jet Aircraft Museum
- Various Parks (TVP, Sifton Bog, etc)
- Boler Mountain
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,479
- Reaction score
- 9,294
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
There are a number of things to do in Okotoks too.
Krypto98
Active Member
There are 8 currently in the roster. Last i checked there are at least 2 or 3 double header sets that are cycled. These are 557,559,560,561,563,564
Currently
557,560 together
564 563 together
559,561 together
562 has been doing L6 runs on various lines. Last I saw 558 it was doing L4 runs on RH
Bordercollie
Senior Member
If they can make them exclusive for London and Kitchener it's possible to add runs.
How about upgrading the track on the st Mary's bridge to accommodate MP40's?
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,453
- Reaction score
- 1,516
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Should have done bus service to London first. Liberal government will catch flack if they cancel this. Going to Stratford is fine although just building out a low cost bus network would have been cheaper.
Krypto98
Active Member
If hourly train service to Kitchener becomes a reality perhaps a bus connection from Kitchener will be feasible.
I haven't heard anything on St marys, I do know some speed restrictions have been lifted however now there is a 10 mph tso at Shakespeare due to recent flooding
TRONto
Active Member
Although not exactly this topic I thought this would be the best place to ask this question.
What would stand in the way of using the Barrie track (aside to an expropriation for a west to south curve) for the Richmond Hill line? What I was thinking was to go west after leaving Langstaff station around John street and south on the Barrie track. I realize this would orphan the Oriole station but I feel that the possible increase in frequency using the Barrie track more than offsets the cons of dropping that station.
From what I remember, there seems to be space to add more tracks on that east-west line (at least around John st). Would whomever owns the line by staunchly against it? Otherwise what about using the 407 ROW to meet the Barrie track and go south to Union from there (also dropping Langstaff unfortunately)?
What would stand in the way of using the Barrie track (aside to an expropriation for a west to south curve) for the Richmond Hill line? What I was thinking was to go west after leaving Langstaff station around John street and south on the Barrie track. I realize this would orphan the Oriole station but I feel that the possible increase in frequency using the Barrie track more than offsets the cons of dropping that station.
From what I remember, there seems to be space to add more tracks on that east-west line (at least around John st). Would whomever owns the line by staunchly against it? Otherwise what about using the 407 ROW to meet the Barrie track and go south to Union from there (also dropping Langstaff unfortunately)?
ARG1
Senior Member
First you need to build a connector track onto the York Sub from the Barrie Line (South to East), and then you have to acquire the track rights from CN of the York sub - all for... what improvements exactly?
Northern Light
Superstar
A few points for clarity here:
As noted by @ARG1 above, the east-west track is CN's mainline, known as the York sub here. Its very unlikely they would have any enthusiasm for several new GO trains per day (or more with all-day service) using their existing track. While additional track could be laid, presumably at taxpayer expense, its not a small undertaking.
The distance along the York sub from the Bala (Richmond Hill) tracks, to the Barrie corridor is ~8km. That's a material distance for those heading to downtown.
I recognize that the Bala/R-H tracks are windy and that adds some extra km; but that routing to the Barrie Corridor adds 8km upfront, and at least 3km more working your way back to downtown from the west.
I haven't looked closely, but I can't imagine that saves any trip time for R-H to downtown commuters, and I'd be somewhat surprised it if it didn't add trip time; which is never a popular call.
What is the advantage that you imagine from this routing? (sincere, not snarky question)
crs1026
Superstar
It's roughly 13 miles from Union to Snider on the Barrie line, and then a further five miles across the York Sub to Doncaster for a total of 18 miles, versus 16 miles up the Don Valley. Doesn't sound like a lot further, but there would not be much in time savings given that trains would have to slow to navigate the connecting tracks at both points. And the trip up the Barrie line is not really that much faster than the Don Valley when one considers there may be stopping trains ahead that stop at some or all of Spadina, Liberty, Bloor, and Downsview Park.
As noted, CN would be far from eager. That's a congested area for CN. They too will be using the connecting track at Doncaster, again at lower speed ....so GO might encounter delays. It's common for both existing main tracks to be occupied at the same time. GO would have to build its own track.... and there would be the added challenge of GO having to cross from north to south, or vv, leaving CN without a through route for its trains whenever a GO is on line. That might actually force construction of a flyover similar to Silver or Snider or Davenport.
Could GO add enough track to make this workable? Possibly, with a pile of money. It would probably be cheaper to grade separate the Doncaster diamond so that GO doesn't tie up CN's line when it crosses.
I too am curious what you'd see as the benefits of this routing?.
- Paul
As noted, CN would be far from eager. That's a congested area for CN. They too will be using the connecting track at Doncaster, again at lower speed ....so GO might encounter delays. It's common for both existing main tracks to be occupied at the same time. GO would have to build its own track.... and there would be the added challenge of GO having to cross from north to south, or vv, leaving CN without a through route for its trains whenever a GO is on line. That might actually force construction of a flyover similar to Silver or Snider or Davenport.
Could GO add enough track to make this workable? Possibly, with a pile of money. It would probably be cheaper to grade separate the Doncaster diamond so that GO doesn't tie up CN's line when it crosses.
I too am curious what you'd see as the benefits of this routing?.
- Paul
TRONto
Active Member
From all your feedback (thank you), I am guessing that a Richmond Hill Station to Union Station trip along a 407 ROW to Barrie track would allow for a ~30 minute trip (similar to the current Union to Rutherford) and allow for electrified RER frequencies as Metrolinx would own the entire track. Maybe add a station at Dufferin/407 to increase coverage area.
Goal >>> This version of the Richmond Hill GO line would better service Richmond Hill riders. The trip to Richmond Hill to Union is ~13 minutes shorter (~30 min vs 43 min) and could have all day frequency. The rider gets the option of rapid transit to access either branch of Line 1 and also Line 2. They lose out on accessing the Sheppard Line which should be ok with the Line 1 extension to Richmond Hill. Overall I would expect a much higher ridership on this version of a GO line then the current one. I imagine building this spur would be cheap (relatively speaking) as the province owns the 407 ROW and would require one or two new stations.
Just a thought that occured to me today. The line might not be useful for much else as it seems that CN owns the track north of Old Cummer from what I saw.
What challenges would this option face?
Northern Light
Superstar
I have the R-H trip pegged at 40M on the current schedule. (Langstaff to Union) (maximum savings 10 minutes)
If you're going to jaunt the train 8km sideways, you'd require 6 minutes, assuming you maintained 80km/ph the entire way.
There is no way you would manage that based on the speed at which the turning movements could be made.
Add at least 1 minute per movement, and 1 more for acceleration/deceleration and at best its time-neutral.
That's before factoring in new stations, and the Barrie Corridor is getting 3 of those between the York sub and Union. (Eglinton (Caledonia), St. Clair, and Bloor)
CN owns the track north of Doncaster (where the E-W York sub and the N-S Bala (R-H) tracks meet.
Metrolinx owns all the track to the south. So there would no change in terms of whose tracks the trains run on in that scenario.
Lots, the 407 is leased to a private company who will not be ceding any portion of what they control under the terms of their agreement without compensation. A further portion of the corridor is controlled by Hydro One; and then CN has full ownership of its corridor.
Permission and expense are material issues.
Also, as @crs1026 noted, there's the small matter of how to get the GO trains from one set of tracks to the other without crossing-over the CN York sub at grade. That means bridges/tunnels which add costs.
TRONto
Active Member
Even with comparable duration, having direct access to Line 1 (west branch), Line 2, Line 5 and St Clair offers more value to the rider then the current route.
My understanding is that the 407 corridor was always intended to be a transportation corridor (hydro, road, rail, gas) and is owned by the province so I assume the 407 contract is for running the highway, not all the 407 area lands. Obviously I don't know, but the land is owned by the province so the land for rail shouldn't be an issue.
I looked again after your message and I can't see any track between Richmond Hill station and the Barrie track along the 407 ROW. Did I miss it? Under this proposal the Richmond Hill station would sit on the 407 ROW and thus the spur wouldn't touch CN/CP rail as far as I can tell.